in the Court of Appeals 13 February 2019.
by defendant from order entered 6 June 2018 by Judge Vince M.
Rozier, Jr., in Wake County No. 17 CVS 9169 Superior Court.
brief filed for plaintiff-appellee.
LLP, by Dhamian A. Blue, for defendant-appellant.
Shaw Thompson ("defendant") appeals from the trial
court's order denying his motion for summary judgment.
For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
Brown ("plaintiff") commenced this action against
defendant on 27 July 2017. Plaintiff asserted allegations
including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
sexual harassment. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an
answer on 11 October 2017.
April 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, or
in the alternative, a motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute. Defendant sought summary judgment on the basis
that principles of res judicata precluded plaintiff
from any recovery. Defendant attached to the motion a copy of
a "Complaint for No-contact Order for Stalking or
Nonconsensual Sexual Conduct" filed by plaintiff in Wake
County District Court on 5 October 2017. Defendant also
attached to the motion a copy of the district court's 2
November 2017 "No Contact Order for Stalking or
Nonconsensual Sexual Conduct" denying plaintiff's
complaint and dismissing the matter upon finding a failure to
motion for summary judgment was heard at the 31 May 2018
session of Wake County Superior Court. On 6 June 2018, the
trial court entered an order denying defendant's motion
for summary judgment. Defendant filed notice of appeal on 27
outset, we must address the interlocutory nature of
order denying of a motion for summary judgment is an
interlocutory order because it leaves the matter for further
action by the trial court. See Veazey v. City of
Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950)
("An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency
of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves
it for further action by the trial court in order to settle
and determine the entire controversy.").
"Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from
interlocutory orders and judgments." Goldston v. Am.
Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 725, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736
(1990). However, "immediate appeal is available from an
interlocutory order or judgment which affects a substantial
right." Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 162,
522 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1999) (quotation marks
an appeal is interlocutory, the appellant must include in its
statement of grounds for appellate review 'sufficient
facts and argument to support appellate review on the ground
that the challenged order affects a substantial
right.'" Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C.App.
515, 518, 608 S.E.2d 336, 338 (quoting N.C. R. App. P.
28(b)(4)), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 53, 619
S.E.2d 502 (2005). "The appellants must present more
than a bare assertion that the order affects a substantial
right; they must demonstrate why the order affects a